With conservation districts, Houston could have a new path to preserve neighborhoods

[AcresMansions]

With conservation districts, Houston could have a new path to preserve neighborhoods | Kinder Institute for Urban Research | Rice University

They're doing public hearings this Wednesday the 22nd. 

Personally I'm against the whole idea, it seems to me like a huge handout to entrenched interests in some of the more popular neighborhoods in Houston. This is just going to codify Nimbyism and will effectively bring zoning to the city of no zoning. It seems like the opposite of what the Livable Places Action committee's stated goals are, and will lead to further shortage of housing for Newstonians.
 

[staresatmaps]

Is there nothing else on this anywhere? This is a huge deal and could severely hinder the city in the long term. All that's needed is a 51% vote and any neighborhood can apply. And if it's anything like the historic districts, they can just change the boundaries until an area is 51% in favor.

https://www.letstalkhouston.org/conservationdistrict

https://abc13.com/houston-news-neighborhoods-conservation-districts-independence-heights/13043991/

[staresatmaps]

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/houston/article/houston-creates-conservation-districts-17878204.php

"Houston City Council on Wednesday approved a program that would allow the city to designate conservation districts in six neighborhoods"

[trymahjong]

Okay

i do live in an historic designated neighborhood in Montrose getting that designation was not easy.

This is a new process- I will go out on a limb and say: I doubt it will be an easy process.

The thing to grasp IMO with trying to conserve certain neighborhoods is the plain fact that when those neighborhoods are gone....they are gone.

[staresatmaps]

1 hour ago, trymahjong said:

Okay

i do live in an historic designated neighborhood in Montrose getting that designation was not easy.

This is a new process- I will go out on a limb and say: I doubt it will be an easy process.

The thing to grasp IMO with trying to conserve certain neighborhoods is the plain fact that when those neighborhoods are gone....they are gone.

This is designed for people that want, but couldn't get historic district status for their neighborhood. It's also only 51% vote instead of 67% vote. With second class non-owner residents still getting zero vote. This is a purely anti-construction measures and has nothing to do with protecting historic structures.

[trymahjong]

Ten years ago- or so, When Mayor Turner had all the historic districts do a "do-over" Avondale had to start over...51 %...still  not easy to accomplish.

I'm not sure why you label non owners second class.

I thought about the notion of " anti construction" - There are many empty lots within Avondale  that never seem to get bought for new development. In my twenty years here I've watched, good serviceable  historic homes torn down to make room for four cookie cutter town homes......ugh. So maybe somewhere, somehow that might translate to anti construction.  IMO Houston is a huge place, why are historic homes the first thing on developers radar?  It doesn't matter.....once those houses are gone, they're gone.

[staresatmaps]

On 4/6/2023 at 7:15 AM, trymahjong said:

Ten years ago- or so, When Mayor Turner had all the historic districts do a "do-over" Avondale had to start over...51 %...still  not easy to accomplish.

I'm not sure why you label non owners second class.

I thought about the notion of " anti construction" - There are many empty lots within Avondale  that never seem to get bought for new development. In my twenty years here I've watched, good serviceable  historic homes torn down to make room for four cookie cutter town homes......ugh. So maybe somewhere, somehow that might translate to anti construction.  IMO Houston is a huge place, why are historic homes the first thing on developers radar?  It doesn't matter.....once those houses are gone, they're gone.

I'm labelling non owner residents second class because they do not get a vote. Only property owners get a vote.

[Ross]

44 minutes ago, staresatmaps said:

I'm labelling non owner residents second class because they do not get a vote. Only property owners get a vote.

Why should non-property owners get a say in whether an area becomes a conservation district? Shouldn't that only be up to the property owners that are affected? It's the same logic that disallows renters voting to decide whether to form an HOA for an area - it's a property owners only thing.

[staresatmaps]

48 minutes ago, Ross said:

Why should non-property owners get a say in whether an area becomes a conservation district? Shouldn't that only be up to the property owners that are affected? It's the same logic that disallows renters voting to decide whether to form an HOA for an area - it's a property owners only thing.

How are non property owners not affected? Do they not live on the properties? HOA's are voluntary non-government entitities. You cannot be forced to join an HOA. Should only property owners get to vote for the city council? Should only property owners get to vote on zoning laws? The last state to abolish property qualification to vote was North Carolina in 1856. That's how long ago this debate was settled.

[trymahjong]

10 hours ago, staresatmaps said:

non

 labelling non owner residents..........

If we are talking about impact......all property residents get to advocate.....but voting ......probably the only bonus property owners get for paying all those huge property taxes.

[Ross]

9 hours ago, staresatmaps said:

How are non property owners not affected? Do they not live on the properties? HOA's are voluntary non-government entitities. You cannot be forced to join an HOA. Should only property owners get to vote for the city council? Should only property owners get to vote on zoning laws? The last state to abolish property qualification to vote was North Carolina in 1856. That's how long ago this debate was settled.

These elections would be to establish whether property should be treated in a different manner. Renters should not get to say whether their landlord's property should be subject to restrictions that have nothing to do with the renter.

It's true you cannot be forced to join an HOA, but your logic would allow a renter to force their landlord to join, whether the landlord wants to or not.

[staresatmaps]

On 4/8/2023 at 7:56 AM, Ross said:

These elections would be to establish whether property should be treated in a different manner. Renters should not get to say whether their landlord's property should be subject to restrictions that have nothing to do with the renter.

It's true you cannot be forced to join an HOA, but your logic would allow a renter to force their landlord to join, whether the landlord wants to or not.

It's not just about YOUR property though. People are allowed to make decisions for their property. This is voting for a law(legally enforceable rule) for an entire area. It effects others properties, not just your own. It's not about renters or landlords or who is effected. As a general consensus we, as a country and state, have came to an ethical consensus that the only reasons to restrict voting is by age, citizenship status, mental incapacitation, felony status, and place of residence. That's it. You can't just add other requirements.

If we are voting on a law on reproductive rights, it's not only women that get to vote. If we are voting on a law on gun rights, it's not only gun owners that get to vote. If we are voting on driving laws, its not only drivers license holders that get to vote.

I can go even further. Here's your neighborhood. One property is half an acre with 30 people living on it. The next property is a quarter acre and has 1 owner living there. The next one is half an acre with ownership split between 30 people. The next one is a storage facility with 3 owners that are non-US citizens living in Argentina that never visit. The next property is a quarter acre lot with a 200 million dollar house on it with 1 owner. Who gets how much vote? Does each property get 1 vote? Does each owner get 1 vote? Does the property tax come into calculation? Does the land size come into calculation?

Now as I'm sure you already know they skirt this by not using the words voting or ballots, they are just "collecting response forms". And if the property has more than one owner, they have decided that only 1 needs to give their support. 29 can say no, but as long as 1 says yes it counts as a yes.

And yes, residents should and do get a say on things that effect their landlords all the time. It's called voting. Happens all the time.

I can go all day on how unethical it is to only allow property owners to vote on a neighborhood law no matter what the law is.

[trymahjong]

Community Impact did big story on this topic.